CAN welcomes the ongoing work by the IPCC for the release of the “Special Report on the Impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emissions pathways (IPCC SR 1.5)” in 2018. The preparation of this report were suggested by the UNFCCC in December 2015 and decided in the IPCC meeting in Nairobi in April 2016.
Scientific Review Working Group
This CAN Working Group monitors the two fora where the First Periodical Review is discussed in the UNFCCC: the Joint Contact Group (JCG) and of the Structured Expert Dialogue (SED). Here, the Review assesses new science, especially the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) with the aim of examining whether the 2°C limit is still scientifically sound. The group also observes the IPCC meetings and leads the policy side of CAN’s engagement there.
My name is Eddy Pérez, speaking on behalf of Climate Action Network.
Key to the Paris agreement are various provisions that allude to potential review and revision of ambition over the course of time. Given that the current set of INDCs are completely inadequate and would set the world, in the best case, on a 3-4ºC temperature pathway, CAN strongly encourages countries to increase their INDCs before inscribing them under the new agreement.
Thank you Mr. Chair,
I am Anthony Torres from Climate Action Network.
The devastating impacts of climate change are already being felt the world over.
Thank you, Mr./Madam Co-Chair,
I am Soumya Sudhakar speaking on behalf of Climate Action Network.
2015 was the first year we breached 1 degree of warming above pre-industrial levels, and already, calamitous climate impacts are leaving no region unaffected.
In Paris, the mandate and the work of the 2013 – 2015 review will come to an end.
We have seen scientifically sound, relevant and highly interesting work of the Structured Expert Dialogue, we have learnt that the “guardrail” concept, where up to 2°C of warming is considered safe, is inadequate. Instead we need a long-term goal which makes the defence line as low as possible, ideally 1.5 degrees.
The science of the 2013 – 2015 review is clear, but the political conclusions drawn from its joint contact group (under SBI and SBSTA) were not.